Dr. Kluthe's recent post about absenteeism prompted a no-holds-barred dialogue about expectations and protocols amongst Honors students. This is exactly why we set up the Honors Program blogs and created this meta-blog to coordinate our online discussions.
Well, here's another topic that we hope will get every Honors student talking and thinking: the importance of acknowledging academic titles within an institution of higher learning.
Students are sometimes shocked---shocked!--- to learn that professors talk about students amongst themselves in the pretty much the same way students talk about professors---frankly, and sometimes unflatteringly. (Should it really surprise anyone?---after all, NO group has spent more time in the position of being students than those who stayed in school long enough to earn advanced degrees!).
And, in our view at least, there is nothing wrong or hypocritical about this. We show different sides of ourselves when we are in different social contexts. And these different contexts present varying "rules" for referring to and talking about particular people.
That's part of what makes human lives so fascinating and complex---what is appropriate in one venue (late night in the dorms in the company of peers, for instance) is wholly inappropriate in a different setting (whilst onstage addressing the entire university community as class valedictorian). Thus, referrring to the University president as "Old Man so-and-so" in the former context passes without comment, while making the same reference in the latter would cause a scandal.
When it comes to referring to your professors, the same logic applies: what is appropriate amongst yourselves is not necessarily the right choice when addressing faculty directly---or talking about them to other faculty members.
Some faculty prefer the casual approach and will say to students "call me Dave." We support faculty who make that choice, but we ask students not to extrapolate too much. Not every faculty member wants that type of relationship with students. Thus, for faculty who do not specifically give you this "casual" license, your default position for referring to the faculty member, either directly or to other members of the university community, should involve the faculty member's title. If the faculty member holds a doctorate, it's "Dr. Smith," or "Professor Smith" not "Smith" or "Smith-Dawgggg" or "Pimp-daddy Smith" or whatever funky casual construction you toss around for creativity points late night in the dorms or while hanging out in various wholesome soda-pop shops in Joplin where they never, ever, ever serve alcohol. For faculty members not holding PhD's, it's still "Professor Jones"---not just "Jones."
Now those of you who are freshman may recall that we addressed this point quite specifically during freshman orientation. We told you not to presume too much familiarity with faculty, not to take for granted the incredible opportunities you have for one-on-one faculty interaction. And that means always deferring, unless specifically instructed otherwise, to the use of the title.
For many of us, it's virtually ALL we ask for when it comes to deference within this very casual institution. And it's in stark contrast to our own student experiences, where we dealt with many more "old school" academic types who had a tendancy to be arrogant, haughty, imperious, distant, and had few qualms about verbally humiliating students in public. Almost nobody gets away with this nowadays---and we think that's for the best. But many of us still expect to be addressed by and referred to by our titles.
Why is this? Why do these people make such a big whoop-de-do about a little title? What's the big deal about the difference between "Smith" and "Dr. Smith"? I mean, we're all people---right? We all live in a democracy (ahem) where it says right in the Constitution of Independence that every Bob and Jim-bob and Bobby-Sue is as good as everybody else and that we ain't never had no dukes or barons and we don't take kindly to nobody giving us the high hat with their dang "I'm better'n you" attitude.
We have our own theories and our own reasons for why we think academic titles are an important part of university life. But first we'd like to hear what you think. So we invite you to comment and discuss this topic with us. We also invite you all to take a hint. . . .
p. s. When you contact your professors by e-mail, why not stand out from your peers by simply employing a salutation? You'd be amazed at how much good will you will earn by taking the time to type the three words "Dear Professor Johnson" rather than abruptly spitting out "I need an extension on my paper!!!!!"
6 comments:
Frankly, it bothers me a little to think that there are students who would address a professor by a familiar name (when not expressly asked to do so that is--for what better mark of respect than to follow someone's wishes?). Of course, I may not be the best one to comment on this. I was raised to be very (perhaps too) respectful of authority figures, regardless of title. Heck, I called my father "Sir" for most of my life so far (with the exception of a "wild" bit of teenage rebellion when I refered to him as Dad); I've since moved up to calling him Dad all the time.
I know that Missouri Southern is pretty casual, and professors for the most part aren't going to insist on formality even if they expect it, but that is no reason to do away with titles. It's just a mark of respect. I think that if I spent the next decade or so working for a degree and the title to go with it, I'd be a little upset if some little college undergrad called me Victoria or Tori without the sort of context that would allow it. Of course, the level of formality would be my choice entirely, but that the choice is mine is the mark of respect.
Again I may not be the one to chime in on this, as my formality with most authority figures tends to border on stiffness (I still find it difficult to "chat" with my boss--a well educated and accomplished woman thirty years my senior--about anything not work related). I even go so far as to use "Dr. So and so" when speaking of that person with peers.
In my department, we are told to address certain instructors by their first name simply because this is the way familiarity works in the "real" world. I do, however, find it strange to call instructors by their first names at times and prefer the doctorate title.
This goes against my personal beliefs though. I hate titles and salutations and Austrian hats.
Our forefathers thought this was dumb, too, and we should be obliged to follow it! You spent five years in evil medical school not to be called mister. Wow. Some people spent five years in POW camps.
If you deserve the respect of having a proper title, that's one thing. If you simply shove it in my face, I will object, but will allow you a curteousy. It is a small thing to get upset over and I don't think people need to think about it more than five minutes to know what to do.
I'm glad to hear that professors talk about students. Yes, yes, that is interesting to think about.
Of course all our instructors have earned the right, and deserve to be adressed as professor or Doctor. The social construct of titles serves the purpose of reminding students of our place in those instances when we aren't so happy with something the professor does.
From a students prospective, ragarding those who allow informal titles vs. those who don't opt to, I don't necessarily feel like it has much affect on my relationship with them. I judge the out of class "coolness" of a professor by their personal interests and sense of humor in relation to my own rather than if they let me call them by a casual name.
We appreciate the thoughtful comments we've seen here and we hope that those with other perspectives on this issue feel free to add their two cents.
We're glad to see that most of our students recognize the right of professors to request to be addressed by their titles.
From my personal perspective, this discussion is about the professional status of college professors (and educators in general). Are we professionals---in the sense of a self-regulating body of people dedicated to preserving and furthering a significant area of human endeavor---or are we merely 21st century "knowledge workers," replaceable, out-sourceable, ultimately disposable?
There are those who would argue that the very idea of a "profession" is outmoded and serves as a drag on our fast-moving, global, "information economy." Professions, with their traditions and titles and anti-competitive institutions like tenure, fly in the face of the market and its demand for customer satisfaction at rock bottom prices. Why should a person who has mastered Middle-English poetry have the right to a lifetime job and a professional title, while people who have mastered other types of difficult skills must compete daily in the cut-throat marketplace? It's an excellent question and one that may be impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction.
The standard argument for why we need professions (complete with their attendant titles and entitlements) is that there are certain areas of human endeavor too important and/or complex to be left wide open. When we are looking for airline pilots or obstetricians or lawyers or accountants or college professors, we want people who have passed through a rigorous weeding-out and certification process, people who have been forced to make a "life-choice" of the profession in question. In order to get the best kind of people in these roles, we need to acknowledge that the knowledge and skills they have mastered is such that it can only to perserved, regulated, and extended by people who are dedicated full-time to it. And this is ultimately what a "profession" is---a social role that goes beyond the "work" done between 9am and 5pm Monday through Friday. It involves a lifetime commitment to keeping up on the best and most recent work done in one's field, so much so that one can only really be judged and managed by others who are also part of that field. Thus the tradition of peer-review: only an economist can pass judgment on the work of another economist; only an anthropologist anca pass judgment on the work of a fellow anthropologist.
It is not easy to become a member of a profession---and that's the way it should be. Professions require a great deal of study, preparation, and full-time dedication. Often they come with heavy financial dues, and other types of sacrifices that must be made in order to remain "in the club." All of this is meant to ensure the seriousness, dedication, and competence of the membership.
Different professions offer different rewards. In some cases, the material rewards are extensive, as in the case of doctors and lawyers. In other cases, the material rewards are quite small, as in the case of most college professors. It is perhaps for this latter reason, that this latter group makes such a big deal about the trappings of "professional dignity." It can sometimes seem like the right to the title is the only thing they can point to to affirm their special professional status.
In an american democratic context, this can seem odd---this demand for special treatment. But I ask students to think of how much it benefits them to have the attentions and talents of professionals rather than mere replaceable, interchangeable workers lavished upon them. Every time I am addressed as "Dr." I am reminded of my professional obligation to represent, cultivate, and pass on the wisdom and skills of my field of expertise.
We worry, quite frankly, that changes in the nature of institutional education, new forms of technology, etc. are in the midst of "de-professionalizing" education and turning all of us into the educational version of customer-service representatives and data-processors. Even the use of the term "customer" for student bothers some of us, because it misleads students and cheapens the ideal nature of the student-teacher relationship.
In closing, I'm grateful to have this opportunity to explain why some of us insist on this professional courtesy. I don't expect all students to understand or agree, but I appreciate the effort to understand we are coming from.
Thank you for making such a poignant statement. I appreciate this much more than those who can't defend their title. It's a shame when they can't.
Nate:
Thanks. You make a great point: part of the price we all pay for this system is that some folks who have these titles do little to live up to them. As galling as this is to students, it is infinitely more so to those of us who at least attempt to live up to ours. Like any other commodity, it is subject to cheapening when treated cheaply---and nobody experiences the general cheapening more sharply than those holding the title.
Of course, students need to realize, as I mentioned earlier, that no group has more experience with these problems and paradoxes than your professors. We have spent the bulk of our lives within academia (mostly as students) negotiating these issues and all of us have had to deal with incompetent, arrogant, or just plain unimpressive professors who nevertheless demanded professional respect without doing much to deserve it.
I struggled with this problem myself for many years until my dad taught the saying they use in the armed services (he was a Navy man): "you salute the uniform, not the person." I cannot overemphasize that there is far more to this saying than simply practical advice. There is a deep insight into the nature of institutions and institutional roles and how we are obliged to acknowledge them even while holding something of ourselves outside the whole process. I suppose it's just another version of Jesus' "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" dictum. "Paying tribute" is something we do insofar as we act as institutional role players. This "tribute," however, does not touch the core of our being, where we remain wholly free to form our own judgments about the worth of others as full human beings.
Real teachers understand that the institutional "tribute" is a good and necessary convention, but is nothing, really, in itself. One has to earn the "extra" sincerity and respect that goes with the paying of the tribute by going beyond the institutional role---or at the very least refusing to abuse the privileges granted by the institutional role. Otherwise the title becomes a kind of mockery in the unwilling and ungrateful mouths of those who nevertheless must speak it.
Post a Comment